Deputies arrest 3 Wyoming residents in Utah kidnapping case

My2cents: You wrote"Its only fair that biological parents and children
retain inalienable biological custody rights. " Some people are not fit to
be parents. This woman put her daughter in the company of a sex offender. This
child is not old enough to give consent to decisions in her life.

UnclefredTiconderoga, NY

July 9, 2013 3:45 p.m.

"Their parental rights are conditioned upon that which is best for the
child." While I'm hopeful that courts at least consider what's
best for the child, I also hope that that is not the overriding criteria.
I'm reasonably sure some court could have found better parents for my 3
children if they looked long enough, I'm glad the question never came up.
I'd say that if a parent surrendered their rights in a count, those right
would be gone until the child grew up and voluntarily went to live with that
parent, or the parent petitioned the court to review that case, and won. I
"hate" the idea of a court taking a child away from their parents, but I
agree that it is sometimes sadly necessary....

Anonymous100Anywhere, UT

July 9, 2013 12:10 p.m.

So, following Mr. Horsely's logic, if I somehow obtain his or the school
districts banking information, I should be able to withdraw all of their funds
because there isn't a document at the financial institution that
doesn't say I DO NOT have access to those funds. They should make sure the
financial institution has a list of every person NOT authorized access to the
funds. It's a moronic statement and methinks he's trying to cover the
district's liability. Uh, too late.

LinusBountiful, UT

July 9, 2013 10:41 a.m.

my2cents:

Apparently you have lived a sheltered life. It is common
for biological parents to lose their parental rights and custody of their
children due to their irresponsible choices and lifestyle. Parents do not have
inalienable parental rights. Their parental rights are conditioned upon that
which is best for the child. The child's attachment to and preference of a
biological parent is irrelevant because young children do not know what is best
for them.

Taking a young girl into the environment described in this
article is prima facia evidence that some biological parents are incapable of
protecting their biological child's best interests.

Bag ManPOWDER SPRINGS, GA

July 9, 2013 9:22 a.m.

My2Cents

The mother "voluntarily gave up her parental rights in
2009, and her daughter's grandparents were named the girl's legal
guardians, court records show."

This then does make it a legal
matter. The article did to say why she gave up her rights, but in order to
again get her parental rights she would need to do it through legal means.
Showing up "with documents that showed she had a right to take her
daughter" can then be construed to mean forged documents. Maybe they will
check into that as well.

In any case taking the daughter into a home
with a man who is a registered sex offender is also careless on the part of the
mother, who at this point cannot be trusted with the best interests of the
child.

My2CentsTaylorsville, UT

July 9, 2013 3:41 a.m.

I think its only right that a parent and child can voluntarily undo their
surrender of custody under duress, intimidation, and threats that our legal
system forces parents to make wrong decisions under stress. Its only fair that
biological parents and children retain inalienable biological custody rights.

If a child does not wish to live with her grandparents and wants to
live with their biological parent and willing leaves to be with her mother then
that is her right. The law and courts do not have jurisdiction of biological
needs of parent and child. the mother and child have every right to their own
choices.

What the schools and education system wants and does is
irrelevant, they have no jurisdiction or legal involvement in judicial or
criminal actions and they have no right to be invloved at all.

Nothing has been mentioned about the childs rights and wants here and the law
is just out for blood and to harass this woman and daughter who want each other
in their lives.

Live in partners are irrelevant and people not in
jail for a crime are absolved of all criminal history, another harassment lie by
law enforcement.

samhillSalt Lake City, UT

July 8, 2013 9:31 p.m.

I agree with "shamrock".

Supposedly requiring a list of all
those who are NOT allowed custody seems absurd. So much so that I doubt that is
actually the policy.

My guess is that the Granite School District
will be getting some followup attention on this one.

BTW, very
gratified to know that the girl is safe and the offenders are arrested.

shamrockSalt Lake City, UT

July 8, 2013 8:19 p.m.

Ben Horsely (the spokesperson for the Granite School District) seemss to be
saying that the girl's grandparents should have filed paperwork not only
showing that they had custody, that they needed to file paperwork identifying
anyone who did NOT have custody. Seriously? That would be both unduly
burdensome and ridiculous.

It sounds like the Granite School District
dropped the ball on this one and doesn't want to admit it. Glad to hear
the girl was found as quickly as she was.